STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the offenses are fully set forth in our prior opinion. Given the proceedings which are the subject of this appeal, we will not repeat the facts here.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did the court err at the September 25, 2020 hearing when the court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements and

failed to advise Edinbyrd of his appellate rights?3 2. Should the trial court have taken action on Edinbyrd’s letter regarding his desire to appeal?

3 This appeal is from the February 2021 Franklin hearing. No efforts were made by the defense in the trial court to remedy the failure to appeal from the September 2020 hearings. There is no record on which we can act regarding the resentencing or the failure to seek relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The appropriate remedy, if any, is a petition for habeas corpus. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264.) 3 3. Did defense counsel provide ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the September hearings? 4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the firearm enhancements? 5. Did defense counsel provide ineffective assistance of counsel at the Franklin hearing? Edinbyrd filed a supplemental brief. The primary subject of the brief is a discussion of the fact that he was a child at the time of the offense. He discusses his difficult childhood and the circumstances of his youth that led to his current situation. He asks this court for some form of help, although it is unclear what the court could do to help him. Edinbyrd complains about the admission of his statements at trial and his failure to understand his

Miranda4 rights. He also complains that current appellate counsel has not challenged the trial court’s admission of his statements at trial. He does not address the fact that this appeal is from postjudgment orders and not an at- large review of the history of his case. Edinbyrd’s supplemental brief does not raise any arguable issues for reversal in this appeal. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal based on the record before us. Competent counsel has represented Edinbyrd on this appeal.

4 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. 4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DATO, J.

5